BOW PORCELAIN
The origin of the porcelain manufacture at
Bow is very obscure. The first reliable notice
of it is the patent (fn. 1) applied for on 6 December
1744 by 'Edward Heylin in the parish of Bow
in the county of Middlesex, merchant, and
Thomas Frye of the parish of West Ham in the
county of Essex, painter.' The specification,
enrolled 5 April 1745, is 'for a new method
of manufacturing a certain mineral, whereby
a ware might be made of the same nature or
kind, and equal to, if not exceeding in goodness and beauty, china or porcelain ware
imported from abroad. The material is an
earth, the produce of the Cherokee nation in
America, called by the natives unaker.' The
specification proceeds to give a detailed account
of the composition of the porcelain and the
mode of its manufacture. It seems probable
that the description given was purposely vague,
and that porcelain was not made in any
quantity, if at all, under this patent; the
object of the patentees may have been to protect the use of substances of which they
had no practical experience. Mr. William
Burton (fn. 2) gives an analysis of the ware described
in Heylin and Frye's patent, and arrives at
the conclusion that 'not only were the proportions of Heylin and Frye entirely wrong,
but their "frit" (fn. 3) was useless for its supposed
purpose.' The Cherokee clay or 'unaker' is
said to have been brought to England by a
traveller who recognized its similarity to the
'kaolin,' or china clay, of the Chinese. Some
information concerning this man is given by
William Cookworthy of Plymouth, who afterwards discovered in Cornwall the materials,
china stone (petuntse) and china clay (kaolin),
from which true porcelain is made. Writing
to a friend in 1745, Cookworthy says- (fn. 4)
I had lately with me the person who has discovered the china earth. He had with him
several samples of the china ware which I think
were equal to the Asiatic. It was found on the
back of Virginia, where he was in quest of mines,
and having read Du Halde, he discovered both
the petunze and kaolin. It is this latter earth
which he says is essential to the success of the
manufacture. He is gone for a cargo of it, having
bought from the Indians the whole country where
it rises. They can import it for £13 per ton,
and by that means afford their china as cheap as
common stoneware.
Another patent was applied for by Frye on
17 November 1748, and the specification was
enrolled 17 March 1749. This was for the
manufacture of 'porcelain ware' from totally
different materials, and the wording of this
patent was even more obscure than that of
the first. The substance for which protection was claimed was a 'virgin earth' produced by calcining animals, vegetables, and
fossils, 'but some in greater quantity than
others, as all animal substances, all fossils of
the calcareous kind, as chalk, limestone, &c.' (fn. 5)
Thomas Frye was born near Dublin in
1710, and in early life came to London,
where he followed the profession of an artist.
He painted for the Saddlers' Company the
full-length portrait of Frederick Prince of
Wales preserved in their hall, which he also
engraved and published in 1741. He became manager of the Bow works probably
from their commencement, but after fifteen
years' exposure to the furnaces his health gave
way and he retired in 1759. After staying
for a year in Wales, he returned to London
and resumed his occupation as an engraver,
publishing a series of life-size portraits in
mezzotint, by which he is best known to the
world at large. Frye died of consumption on
2 April 1762, and is described in his epitaph
as 'the inventor and first manufacturer of
porcelain in England.' His two daughters
assisted him in painting the china at Bow
until their marriage. One of them, who
married a Mr. Willcox, was employed by
Josiah Wedgwood at Etruria in painting
figure-subjects from 1759 to 1776, the year
of her death. Heylin and Frye do not appear
to have had a factory of their own, but probably carried on their experiments at a factory
already existing at Bow, having first secured
the services of a well-skilled workman whose
name has not been preserved, and who may
have been the real inventor of English porcelain. Of Heylin nothing is known except
that he was a merchant at Bow, and his name
disappears from the second patent, taken out
in 1749. In the following year Frye no
longer appears as a principal, but as a manager
to another firm. Some valuable information
concerning the Bow factory is given in a collection of memoranda, diaries, and notebooks,
formerly belonging to Lady Charlotte
Schreiber, (fn. 6) which includes a diary of John
Bowcocke, who was employed in the works as
a commercial manager and traveller. These
state that Messrs. Crowther and Weatherby
were proprietors of the Bow manufactory, and
that Thomas Frye acted as their works
manager. Their works were known as 'New
Canton,' and though situated on the Essex
side of the River Lea, close to Bow Bridge,
were commonly described as the Bow China
Works and were so styled by the proprietors.
About 1758 the firm reached its highest point
of success. The memoranda above mentioned
state that in that year three hundred person
were employed, ninety of whom were painters,
all living under one roof. An account of the
business returns for a period of five years
shows that the cash receipts, which were
£6,573 in 1750-1, increased steadily from
year to year, and had reached £11,229 in
1755. The total amount of sales in 1754
realized £18,115. The firm had a retail
shop in Cornhill and a warehouse at St.
Katharine's near the Tower. (fn. 7) Among the
artists whom they employed were some of
considerable repute. J. T. Smith records the
following conversation between Nollekens the
sculptor and a dealer in works of art named
Panton Betew, from whom he wished to
obtain a model of a boy by Fiamingo by way
of exchange:- (fn. 8)
Nollekens.
Do you still buy broken silver ? I
have some odd sleeve-buttons, and Mrs. Nollekens
wants to get rid of a chased watch-case by old
Moser, one that he made when he used to model
for the Bow manufactory.
Betew.
Ay, I know there were many very clever
things produced there; what very curious heads
for canes they made at that manufactory! I
think Crowther was the proprietor's name. There
were some clever men who modelled for the Bow
concern, and they produced several spirited figures:
Quin in Falstaff; Garrick in Richard ; Frederick,
Duke of Cumberland, striding triumphantly over
the Pretender, who is begging quarter of him;
John Wilkes, and so forth.
Nollekens.
Mr. Moser, who was the keeper of
our Academy, modelled several things for them;
he was a chaser originally.
George Michael Moser, who died in 1783,
was the head of his profession as a gold-chaser,
medallist, and enameller ; he was one of the
founders of the Royal Academy, and its first
keeper. John Bacon, the famous sculptor,
who was in his youth a pupil of Crisp, a
modeller of porcelain, is also said to have
designed figures and groups for the Bow
works. Some of the finest specimens of Bow
china have a small 'B' impressed in the paste
below, this being the mark of John Bacon.
The best known of these are the male and
female cooks. (fn. 9)
To obtain a supply of good artists the proprietors advertised in newspapers which had a
circulation in the Potteries district. The following advertisement appeared in November
1753 in Aris's Birmingham Gazette: 'This
is to give notice to all painters in the blue and
white potting way and enamellers on china
ware, that by applying at the counting-house
at the china-house near Bow, they may meet
with employment and proper encouragement
according to their merit; likewise painters
brought up in the snuff-box way, japanning,
fan-painting, &c., may have an opportunity of
trial, wherein if they succeed, they shall have
due encouragement. N.B. At the same
house a person is wanted who can model
small figures in clay neatly.'
The production of the factory was not
limited to objects of a highly decorative character only, but included also vessels for
domestic use. The first sale by auction of
articles in stock advertised in the Public
Advertiser of 17 April 1757 included not
only 'services for deserts &c. exquisitely
painted in enamel,' but also 'a large assortment of the most useful china in lots, for the
use of gentlemen's kitchens, private families,
taverns, &c.' In the same year (1757) a
West-end warehouse was opened, announced
thus by the firm: 'For the convenience of
the nobility and gentry, their warehouse on
the Terrace in St. James's Street is constantly
supplied with everything new, where it is sold
as at Cornhill, with the real price marked on
each piece without abatement.' The new
branch did not succeed, and was closed the
next year (1758), the entire stock being sold
by auction.
The partnership continued till the death of
Weatherby, at his house on Tower Hill, on
15 October 1762, and Crowther became bankrupt in the following year, and is described as
'John Crowther, of Cornhill, chinaman.'
Three sales of his effects by order of the
assignees took place, viz., on 12 March 1764
and following days, at the Bow warehouse in
Cornhill ; on 19 May 1764; and at the great
exhibition-room in Spring Gardens on 30 May
1764. The last sale consisted 'of a large
quantity of the finest porcelain, chosen out of
the stock in curious figures, girandoles, and
branches for chimney-pieces, finely decorated
with figures and flowers, &c., dishes, compotiers, &c.; beautiful desserts of the fine old
partridge and wheatsheaf patterns, a quantity of
knife and fork handles, some neatly mounted,
and a variety of other porcelain.'
Crowther seems to have carried on the
business again after his bankruptcy, but it
never regained its former prosperity. There
are plates of Bow ware marked 'Robert
Crowther 1770,' probably made for some
relative, and in the London Directory from
1770 to 1775 it is stated that John Crowther
of the Bow China Works had a warehouse
at 28 St. Paul's Churchyard. The business
must have dwindled down into insignificance,
for in 1776 it was sold for a small sum to
William Duesbury, and all the moulds and
implements were transferred to Derby.
Duesbury had between 1751 and 1753
worked in London as an enameller to
various firms of potters, including the Bow
factory. (fn. 10) From a memorandum left by
Thomas Craft, (fn. 11) an artist at the Bow factory,
it appears that Crowther was elected an inmate of Morden College, Blackheath, where
he was still alive in 1790.
Great difficulties exist in distinguishing
specimens of Bow china from the productions
of Chelsea and other factories, but towards
the end of 1867 a discovery made on the site
of the old works brought to light some very
useful information as to the characteristics of
the ware. During some drainage operations
at the match factory of Messrs. Bell & Black
at Bell Road, St. Leonard's Street, Bromleyby-Bow, the foundations of one of the kilns
were discovered, with a large quantity of
'wasters' and fragments of broken pottery.
The houses close by are still called China
Row. Some of these specimens, which came
into the possession of Lady Charlotte Schreiber,
were chemically tested by Professor A. H.
Church, who found that bone-ash was an
almost constant ingredient in their composition. (fn. 12) This refuted the opinion, until then
generally held, that Josiah Spode the younger
first introduced the use of bone-ash into the
composition of English porcelain about the
years 1797-1800. The fragments (fn. 13) also
gave information as to methods of ornamentation employed at Bow. Some are decorated
in blue with Chinese landscapes, flowers,
figures, birds, and branches of willow leaves;
others are portions of services with the
favourite decoration of the prunus or mayflower, and there are several perfect moulds
for stamping these flowers. The extensive
collection includes milkpots, cups, cans, saucers,
open-work baskets, octagon plates, knifehandles, cup-handles, lion's-paw feet, and
small pots for colour or rouge; but none of
the fragments has any mark, except the name
'Norman,' which is marked in pencil on one
of the cups. Some are broken pieces of decorated ware, such as sweetmeat dishes, figures
of dogs, large bowls, and a man kneeling and
supporting a shell with both hands; of the
last-named design a pair of figures is known
to exist. Although transfer printing is not
found in any of the above pieces, it was
adopted both under and over the glaze at an
early period in the Bow works. (fn. 14)
An undoubted specimen of this ware is an
inkstand, now in private possession, painted
with the well-known Bow pattern of the
prunus, and inscribed on the upper surface
'Made at New Canton 1750.' Another
similar specimen, of a year later and not so
fine, came into the Jermyn Street collection.
Of undoubted genuineness is the interesting
'Craft' bowl in the British Museum already
mentioned, with its accompanying memorandum, dated 1790:-
This bowl was made at the Bow China Manufactory at Stratford-le-Bow, Essex, about the year
1760, and painted there by me Thomas Craft, my
cipher is in the bottom; it is painted in what we
used to call the old Japan taste, a taste at that time
much esteemed by the then Duke of Argyle; there
is nearly two pennyweight of gold, about 15s. I
had it in hand, at different times, about three
months; about two weeks' time was bestowed
upon it. It could not have been manufactured
for less than £4. There is not its similitude. . . .
Other pieces which may safely be assigned
to Bow are a white tureen in the Victoria
and Albert Museum, decorated with the
prunus pattern in high relief. The ware is
mostly of great thickness, but extremely
translucent in its thinner parts, through
which the transmitted light appears somewhat
yellowish. A dessert dish in the same museum
is in the form of a scallop shell. The centre
is decorated with a quail and wheatsheaf pattern, often mentioned as the 'partridge pattern'
in the note-books of John Bowcock of Bow.
Among other examples in this museum are
vases, sauce-boats, knife-handles, an inkstand,
and several figures. Many undoubted specimens of Bow ware, comprising statuettes,
plates, vases, and other pieces richly ornamented, are contained in the Schreiber collection, some of which are figured by Solon, (fn. 15)
and by Burton and Bemrose in their works already quoted. The figures of H. Woodward
as 'a fine gentleman,' and Kitty Clive as Mrs.
Riot, though often attributed to Bow, were
certainly made at Chelsea; but the fine figure
of Britannia with a medallion of George II is
considered to have been made at Bow.
Many of the Bow figures and groups were
made for use, and have at their back near the
base a square hole for holding a metal stem to
support branches for candlesticks; sometimes
there is a round hole beneath the base for
riveting the metal stem. This feature is
peculiar to the Bow pottery, and serves to
distinguish it from that of Chelsea. The
earliest productions at Bow were decorated
(like Thomas Craft's bowl) in the Japanese
style, which suited the fashionable taste of
the day; but since both the Bow and Chelsea
factories borrowed from Oriental and Continental sources, they no doubt also copied
favourite subjects and patterns from each
other. This makes it the more difficult to
determine with certainty the products of each
factory. The prunus decoration has already
been referred to; the blue and white
porcelain is also typical, and was largely
employed for the more useful articles. A
little teapot in the British Museum, with its
embossed vine ornament in white, and the
angler's rod in a delicate greyish blue, is
marked T F, and appears to have been the
work of Thomas Frye. The 'sprigged'
pieces so frequently mentioned in Bowcock's
memoranda are generally white, decorated
with modelled ornaments separately made in
a mould and applied to the surface of the
ware whilst it was in a clay state. The
earlier figures are seldom more than 4 or 5 in.
high, and are placed on simple flat stands; but
these were soon replaced by more elaborate
stands designed in the favourite rococo style
of the period. The largest figure supposed
to have been made at Bow is the 'Farnese
Flora,' 18¼ in. high, in the Schreiber collection at South Kensington, which is said to
have been modelled by John Bacon. In the
British Museum are some examples of Chinese
porcelain painted at Bow. The use of colours
in enamelling sometimes serves to distinguish
Bow ware from that of Chelsea; the enamelling of the latter was artistically superior, and
introduced the rich blue, pea-green, and turquoise, which were not employed at Bow
with equal effect. Three distinctive colours
were in use at Bow, but not with satisfactory
result. These were an enamel sealing-wax
red, badly compounded and wanting in gloss;
a cold opaque enamel blue, often used for
touching up parts of dresses; and a gold
purple, which in thin washes becomes of a
pale mauve-pink hue, and is far from pleasant.
Other points of difference between the products of the two factories are given by
Burton. (fn. 16)
The use of printing for decorative purposes
was largely practised at Bow. There seems
no foundation for the statement that pieces
were sent to Liverpool to be printed by Sadler
and Green. The great majority of specimens
consist of table ware with houses and groups
of figures printed in outline and washed in
with strong enamel colours-purple, blue,
yellow, and green. The large figure of
Britannia in the British Museum has a robe
and stand decorated in printed outline carefully touched in with colour.
Many marks have been attributed to Bow,
of which a list, figured and described, is given
by Chaffers. (fn. 17) The commonest is the anchor
and dagger in red enamel; the italic capital B
is rarely found. The shell sweetmeat stands
are rarely marked. The monogram of Thomas
Frye, in capitals, sometimes in italic and sometimes reversed, occurs on some pieces. These
must be attributed to an early period of the
Bow works, and were probably painted by
Thomas Frye himself.